Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
E. Ziegel (2002)
Generalized Linear ModelsTechnometrics, 44
A. Skidmore, A. Gauld, P. Walker (1996)
Classification of Kangaroo Habitat Distribution Using Three GIS ModelsInt. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., 10
Magne Sætersdal, H. Birks (1997)
A comparative ecological study of Norwegian mountain plants in relation to possible future climatic changeJournal of Biogeography, 24
C. Braak (1988)
CANOCO—an extension of DECORANA to analyze species-environment relationshipsVegetatio, 75
M. Korzukhin, M. Ter‐Mikaelian, R. Wagner (1996)
Process versus empirical models: which approach for forest ecosystem management?Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 26
D. Ferrer‐Castán, J. Calvo, M. Esteve-Selma, Antonio Torres‐Martínez, L. Ramírez-Díaz (1995)
On the use of three performance measures for fitting species response curvesJournal of Vegetation Science, 6
M. Malik (2005)
Applied Linear RegressionTechnometrics, 47
G. Shao, P. Halpin (1995)
Climatic controls of eastern North American coastal tree and shrub distributionsJournal of Biogeography, 22
C. Braak (1987)
The analysis of vegetation-environment relationships by canonical correspondence analysisVegetatio, 69
R. Monserud, R. Leemans (1992)
Comparing global vegetation maps with the Kappa statisticEcological Modelling, 62
A. Nicholls (1989)
How to make biological surveys go further with generalised linear modelsBiological Conservation, 50
J. Huisman, H. Olff, L. Fresco (1993)
A hierarchical set of models for species response analysisJournal of Vegetation Science, 4
(1996)
Plant community classification of the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada
P. Walker, Danielle Moore (1988)
SIMPLE An inductive modelling and mapping tool for spatially-oriented dataInt. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., 2
M. Hutchinson, R. Bischof (1983)
A new method for estimating the spatial distribution of mean seasonal and annual rainfall applied to the Hunter Valley, New South Wales
T. Yee, N. Mitchell (1991)
Generalized additive models in plant ecologyJournal of Vegetation Science, 2
T. Frank (1988)
Mapping dominant vegetation communities in the Colorado Rocky Mountain Front Range with Landsat Thematic Mapper and digital terrain data
J. Franklin (1995)
Predictive vegetation mapping: geographic modelling of biospatial patterns in relation to environmental gradientsProgress in Physical Geography, 19
J. Lenihan (1993)
Ecological response surfaces for North American boreal tree species and their use in forest classificationJournal of Vegetation Science, 4
I. Burke, W. Reiners, R. Olson (1989)
Topographic control of vegetation in a mountain big sagebrush steppeVegetatio, 84
R. Lanner (1984)
Trees of the Great Basin: A Natural History
J. Oksanen (1997)
Why the beta-function cannot be used to estimate skewness of species responsesJournal of Vegetation Science, 8
M. Palmer (1993)
PUTTING THINGS IN EVEN BETTER ORDER: THE ADVANTAGES OF CANONICAL CORRESPONDENCE ANALYSIS'Ecology, 74
M. Hill, R. Jongman, C. Braak, O. Tongeren (1987)
Data analysis in community and landscape ecologyJournal of Animal Science
R. Clarke, M. Greenacre (1985)
Theory and Applications of Correspondence AnalysisJournal of Animal Ecology, 54
M. Hill (1991)
Patterns of species distribution in Britain elucidated by canonical correspondence analysisJournal of Biogeography, 18
(1992)
Modeling potential natural vegetation from a topographic gradient in the southern Sierra Nevada, California
C. Braak, P. Šmilauer (1998)
CANOCO Reference Manual and User's Guide to Canoco for Windows: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (Version 4)
M. Hill (1974)
Correspondence Analysis: A Neglected Multivariate MethodJournal of The Royal Statistical Society Series C-applied Statistics, 23
R. Heikkinen (1996)
Predicting patterns of vascular plant species richness with composite variables: a meso-scale study in Finnish LaplandVegetatio, 126
P. Walker, K. Cocks (1991)
HABITAT : a procedure for modelling a disjoint environmental envelope for a plant or animal species, 1
P. Rich, F. Barnes, S. Weiss (1993)
Hetrick, W.A., P.M. Rich, F.J. Barnes, and S.B. Weiss. 1993. GIS-based solar radiation flux models. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Technical Papers. Vol 3, GIS. Photogrammetry, and Modeling. pp 132-143. GIS-BASED SOLAR RADIATION FLUX MODELS
A. Guisan, J. Theurillat, F. Kienast (1998)
Predicting the potential distribution of plant species in an alpine environmentJournal of Vegetation Science, 9
B. Brzeziecki, F. Kienast, O. Wildi (1993)
A simulated map of the potential natural forest vegetation of SwitzerlandJournal of Vegetation Science, 4
Mike Austin, T. Smith (1989)
A new model for the continuum conceptVegetatio, 83
M. Austin, A. Nicholls, M. Doherty, Jacqui Meyers (1994)
Determining species response functions to an environmental gradient by means of a β‐functionJournal of Vegetation Science, 5
(1997)
Distribution de taxons végétaux dans un environnement alpin: Application de modélisations statistiques dans un système d’information géographique
H. Gauch (1984)
Multivariate analysis in community ecology
M. Gottfried, H. Pauli, G. Grabherr (1998)
Prediction of Vegetation Patterns at the Limits of Plant Life: A New View of the Alpine-Nival EcotoneArctic and alpine research, 30
Jacob Cohen (1960)
A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal ScalesEducational and Psychological Measurement, 20
Despite the variety of statistical methods available for static modeling of plant distribution, few studies directly compare methods on a common data set. In this paper, the predictive power of Generalized Linear Models (GLM) versus Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) models of plant distribution in the Spring Mountains of Nevada, USA, are compared. Results show that GLM models give better predictions than CCA models because a species-specific subset of explanatory variables can be selected in GLM, while in CCA, all species are modeled using the same set of composite environmental variables (axes). Although both techniques can be readily ported to a Geographical Information System (GIS), CCA models are more readily implemented for many species at once. Predictions from both techniques rank the species models in the same order of quality; i.e. a species whose distribution is well modeled by GLM is also well modeled by CCA and vice-versa. In both cases, species for which model predictions have the poorest accuracy are either disturbance or fire related, or species for which too few observations were available to calibrate and evaluate the model. Each technique has its advantages and drawbacks. In general GLM will provide better species specific-models, but CCA will provide a broader overview of multiple species, diversity, and plant communities.
Plant Ecology – Springer Journals
Published: Sep 28, 2004
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.